Latest news with #publichousing
South China Morning Post
3 days ago
- General
- South China Morning Post
Bitumen-lined water pipe in Hong Kong to be replaced by early July: minister
The water pipe believed to have introduced black particles of bitumen into the freshwater supply at two public housing estates last month will be replaced by early July, the development minister has pledged. Advertisement Secretary for Development Bernadette Linn Hon-ho also said on Wednesday that they had completed more than 1,500 requests from residents at Queens Hill Estate and Shan Lai Court in Fanling to flush their water meters within one to two days, and most people reported improvements in water quality and did not require follow-up. The 400-metre (1,312-foot) section of the pipe lined with bitumen, located outside the estates and connected to their freshwater pipes, would be permanently decommissioned from early July and replaced by a temporary pipe. She said the Water Supplies Department last week 'adopted an unconventional mindset' and explored the use of exposed temporary pipe to replace the pipe in question, and formulated traffic arrangements near the construction site with various departments. 'Even though the relevant locations are busy with traffic and the construction site has limited space, the Water Supplies Department will immediately commence the construction after concerted efforts,' she told the Legislative Council. Advertisement 'The department will conduct the construction around the clock. It is expected that the temporary pipe will be completed by early July, meaning that the bitumen-lined pipe will be decommissioned permanently from early July.'
SBS Australia
3 days ago
- Politics
- SBS Australia
'A housing disaster': The case against demolishing Melbourne's public housing
Days before resigning in 2023, former Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews announced a plan to demolish all 44 of Victoria's public housing towers. As Australia grapples with an ongoing housing crisis, plans to demolish the homes of 10,000 Victorians and rebuild them by 2051, has many experts and residents scratching their head. In April, the Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed a class action from tenants opposing the decision. Determined to be heard, the residents are launching an appeal. Louisa Bassini is the managing lawyer for Housing and Tenancy at the Inner Melbourne Community Legal Centre. She tells SBS that Homes Victoria failed to properly consider the human rights of residents, in making the decision without consultation. "Other grounds pertain to the group members' rights to have an opportunity to be heard. To this day, Homes Victoria still haven't consulted with residents and allowed them to put forward submissions regarding alternatives to demolition. And so our argument is that the trial judge erred in finding that this wasn't required and that this wasn't necessarily impactful on the outcome of Homes Victoria's program." Victorian Housing Minister Harriet Shing told SBS the towers are long overdue for replacement. "Well, anybody who's ever been in the towers or who calls the towers home will know that they're really noisy. They're cold in winter, they're hot in summer. They don't have access to the same sorts of ventilation, natural light or amenity that apply to every other form of housing around the state in terms of current codes of compliance." In the North Melbourne Public housing towers, residents say they found out about the decision via a note slipped under their door, informing them that their homes would be the first to go. Gabrielle de Vietri is the Victorian Greens Housing Spokesperson. She's also the state member for Richmond, which has more public housing towers than any other electorate in Victoria. On the day of the announcement, a public meeting was held for residents. "All they had heard was that they had received a letter under their door on the day that Dan Andrews made this announcement saying, we're going to demolish your home. We don't know when sit tight. And the distress in that room was absolutely palpable because there had been no other information communicated. There'd been no consultation with residents whatsoever." De Vietri says many of these towers are predominantly occupied by migrants and refugees. With decades of community building inside the towers, she says residents fear being cut off from their support networks. "And one elderly Vietnamese woman stood up and spoke on behalf of a group of residents that were all around an interpreter saying, we will chain ourselves to this building rather than let the bulldozers come in. This is our home. We are not letting it go. And they have built their community around this location. They have access to their doctors, they have their friends, they have their services, and they have their community there." According to a recent report from the Victorian Housing Peaks Alliance, Victoria needs an extra 80,000 social housing homes in the next decade to get the state back on track. The term Social Housing encompasses two broad categories, public and community housing. Public housing is owned and managed by the state government, whereas community housing is managed, and often owned, by private not-for-profit organisations. Harriet Shing says tenants have the same set of rights regardless. "Everybody in social housing, whether they are provided housing under the public housing system or under community housing, who's coming off the wait, who gets that housing as a result of that wait list and priority access is entitled to the rights that exist under the Residential Tendencies Act. They are the same irrespective of what part of the social housing system you are in." But, while tenants may have the same rights once they're in community housing, the private organisations that own the dwellings can lease up to 25 per cent to private renters, reducing the number available to those on the wait list. Rent prices in community housing are also not subject to the same rent cap as public housing, with tenants possibly facing a 5 per cent rent increase if moved to community housing. Louisa Bassini says this is not good enough. "So this is returning to the estates, subject to availability of community housing properties, which means that these people would no longer be public housing residents. They would be living under the management of non-government organizations and with fewer rights that stem from the policies of those organisations. It's inadequate given that they're being evicted, their homes are being demolished, and still there's no assurances that they can return as public housing residents to the estates." While there is general agreement that the towers are no longer up to building code standards, independent architects say there's no reason why the buildings can't be retrofitted. Nigel Bertram co-authored a report making the case for retrofitting and is a practice professor of architecture at Monash University. He says the plan to demolish is deeply flawed. "They're all built in a very similar manner. So their modularity, if you makes them very suited to retrofitting actually, because they're systematic. So if we could work out a system for one building, it can be used on multiple buildings. They're almost like a kit of parts out of the precast factory. Were put together in the same kind of way. So with similar structures." While unique changes and modifications that have occurred throughout the buildings over the decades, he says that can be dealt with. "It's possible to bring buildings up to standard to different degrees, certainly to the point that they're fit for habitation and fit for ongoing use into the future... If you think about the city as a whole, we have a whole lot of buildings that are very, very cherished buildings from the 19th century. They don't meet current standards either, but we don't use that as a reason to knock them down. In fact, we think very carefully about how to make them livable for contemporary needs and retain them." Aside from the social impacts on residents, he says the independent analysis has found retrofitting is not only cheaper, but better for the environment. "We put all those social factors aside, we didn't cost them, we didn't discuss them, we just looked at the numbers of what would it cost, what's required scope of works, and its embodied carbon. And we found that environmentally and economically it's cheaper and better to retrofit rather than rebuild." A number of similar reports have been released by architects and academics, arguing the case of retrofitting. But Harriet Shing says these reports are misinformed about the condition and structure of the buildings. "What I would say is that the sort of buildings referred to by that person constructed in the 19th century were not 26 stories tall. So the sort of engineering challenges that exist there in the first place are very difficult to compare with one and two story buildings or smaller apartment blocks, walk-ups, for example, of three or four or five stories. The second thing that's really important to note this is that communities have expressed a very, very clear desire not to be impacted by construction." Gabrielle de Vietri says their team has knocked on the doors of every public housing resident in the Richmond electorate. "Across all the estates, what we're hearing from residents is that relocation offices are... they're promising things that they can't deliver and they're threatening them with some pretty scary situations. So they're promising residents the right of return, which in fact, Homes Victoria's own relocation policy doesn't actually guarantee the right of return. And residents aren't aware that even if they do return maybe 7, 8, 9 years down the track, they're not actually going to be returning to public housing." The government says residents do have right of return, but only if they're deemed eligible. So, if someone's situation changes their eligibility for certain housing options, they may no longer have priority access to the housing they have now. While the government insists that clear communications have been made with residents throughout the process, groups representing tenants told SBS something different. Louisa Bassini says there are more than 800 households currently represented in the class action against Homes Victoria. "They are residents of the three towers that are the first occupied towers that are set to be demolished. But we think that the outcome of this decision has ramifications for residents of all of the towers across Melbourne. So those 10,000 people, I think, all are watching closely and have an interest in this process being a fair one because their towers are also set to be demolished under the program." Katelyn Butterss is the CEO of the Victorian Public Tenants Association. With a number of relocations already underway, she tell SBS that there have been mixed outcomes. "We have heard from some renters that they are quite happy and we've heard from some others that they just don't meet their needs at all, that the layouts aren't culturally sensitive for them and that they're struggling to fit their furniture in the homes." The Productivity Commission's latest annual Report on Government Services reveals just 2.9 per cent of Victorian households are in social housing – well behind the national average of 3.9 per cent. Katelyn Butterss says that one of the key concerns of the VPTA is that when these social dwellings are rebuilt, many won't meet the needs of families currently in the towers. "There are lots of larger families at North Melbourne and Flemington that we did a detailed piece of community engagement work with to really understand what their ambitions were for new homes to be rebuilt on the sites. And they had lots of very sensible and reasonable suggestions of things that they would like to see. And that included bedrooms that were large enough to have two single beds side by side, but the areas for older children available, if not in the apartment itself, then a common area that they could go and do homework quietly and very importantly, kitchens that are not open plan but are separated further from the rest of the home. Many cases for cultural reasons, but also to prevent the spread of cooking smells and to create an extra living space for larger families." Harriet Shing says that the government is determined to proceed with their plans and vows that communication and consultation with communities will continue every step of the way. "We will keep working with residents and with the community to provide them with accurate information. We will keep working to make sure that people have access to housing that meets their needs and we will keep working to make sure also that as the city grows and we head to a city the size of London, by the 2050s, we are providing a range of housing options for private renters, for people in social housing, for people looking to buy their own home and for people wanting to stay closer to where they grew up." But Gabrielle de Vietri says the Greens won't stop pushing back until this plan is scrapped. "So we're reaching out in as many ways as we can to try and stop this disastrous plan from happening because nobody agrees with the government's plan. Nobody agrees with their decision to demolish these towers, and nobody thinks it's a good idea. In fact, across the political spectrum and across experts and service organizations, residents and community, everybody agrees that it is a disastrous idea because any plan that starts with demolishing 7,000 homes in a housing crisis is not a housing plan. It's a housing disaster."
Malay Mail
4 days ago
- Business
- Malay Mail
‘If you're imitated, you must be doing something good,' PM Wong says after Prabowo eyes Singapore's housing, sovereign wealth fund model
SINGAPORE, June 16 – Singapore and Indonesia are entering a new era of cooperation, with both nations committed to deepening ties, the former's Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said following a Leaders' Retreat with the latter's President Prabowo Subianto. At a joint press conference, Wong highlighted the successful implementation of three key bilateral agreements as proof of the strong relationship, built on mutual respect and trust, between the neighbouring countries. 'The retreat is a platform that we convene only with our two closest neighbours. It reflects the comfort and trust that we have with each other at the highest levels, and our shared commitment to work together in the spirit of mutual respect,' he was quoted saying by The Straits Times. Meanwhile, Prabowo said Indonesia is keen to deepen the partnership and adopt successful Singaporean policies, especially in public housing and sovereign wealth fund management, and saw room for cooperation in healthcare education and caregiving. 'That's the highest form of respect, right? If you are imitated, that means you must be doing something good,' Wong reportedly said, in response. Both leaders also addressed international issues, calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and urging peaceful resolution to the Israel-Iran conflict. Prabowo described the retreat as 'very productive and successful', resulting in 19 deliverables across multiple sectors, and said work would begin immediately to implement them. The meeting marked the first Leaders' Retreat for both Wong and Prabowo since assuming office, and was followed by the signing of new agreements on renewable energy, sustainability, and food safety cooperation. Wong noted that bilateral defence ties were expanding, with both armed forces exploring new areas of military cooperation while continuing joint training. In legal cooperation, Singapore is handling the first extradition case under the new mutual treaty, involving Indonesian businessman Paulus Tannos, who was arrested in Singapore in February over a corruption case. They also welcomed new flights from Singapore to Padang and Kertajati in West Java, and agreed on improving connectivity to foster more exchanges between their citizens. Singapore's foreign direct investment into Indonesia reached US$20.1 billion in 2024, making up a third of Indonesia's realised FDI that year, according to Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Building our way out of social housing unaffordability may no longer be possible
Few would deny that social and affordable housing is in short supply in Australia. The 'social' part of this refers to homes rented out by public housing departments and not-for-profit community housing providers to very low-income Australians, usually at 25% of the tenant's income. But, as highlighted by Guardian Australia, the growing class of 'affordable rental housing' is less clearly defined. In general terms, it is a product that targets the growing population of low-to-moderate-income workers earning above the rock bottom income eligibility thresholds for a social tenancy, but who are hard-pressed to find a suitable home in the private market. The main problem this product seeks to solve is that our private rental sector has been 'going upmarket' for decades. That is, generating fewer and fewer homes affordable to people in the lowest two-fifths of the income spectrum – including those in the second income quintile, ineligible for social housing. Census-based evidence shows that, as a result, Australia's national shortfall of affordable and available private rental dwellings for renters in the second income quintile almost doubled in the 15 years to 2021 – up from 87,000 dwellings to 152,000 dwellings. The problem has been exacerbated by a quarter of a century of negligible social housing growth, even as need for such accommodation has shot up thanks to rising population and inequality. Thus, as a share of our national housing stock, social housing has declined from more than 6% in the 1990s to barely 4% today. State and territory governments have been rationing remaining tenancies ever more tightly as a result, more or less restricting these to households reliant on social security payments. This is why the low-income workers essential to the operation of the modern urban economy nowadays have next to no chance of a public or community housing tenancy. It is also one reason that Australian governments have taken a growing interest in enabling an 'affordable rental housing' product that could make it possible for people in this situation to live reasonably near their work. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email At a big picture level, this is a problem that, according to conventional wisdom, can be tackled by expanding overall housing supply. But it is doubtful that 'building our way out of housing unaffordability' is even possible. And, without major complementary actions, it is unimaginable that such a strategy could significantly moderate market rents in the short-to-medium-term future. At least in the meantime, there is a case for governments to enable affordable rental housing construction as well as invest in expanding social housing. They can do this in one of two ways. The first is by directly subsidising housebuilding – such as under federal programs, including the Housing Australia Future Fund (Haff), which promises 20,000 new affordable rental homes by 2029. The second approach is the deployment of land-use planning or tax powers to require or incentivise private providers to include affordable rental units within market-price housing developments. The New South Wales and Victorian state governments, for example, have recently introduced or beefed up 'density bonus' schemes allowing developers to build higher and bigger, provided that projects include units renting at below-market prices. Using tax powers, the federal government has adopted a similar approach for Build to Rent projects. Under schemes of this type, affordable rents are typically defined relative to comparable market rents – often capped at 75-80% of local norms. When operated in high price areas like Sydney's Bondi, such a formula of course produces rents that sound outrageous outside that local context. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Such homes might possibly assist the junior teachers, nurses and police officers so beloved of ministerial media statements, and there is an arguable case for policymaker attention to such housing needs. But this model is liable to produce rents far out of reach for low-income essential workers. And such units are, anyway, often required to be made available for only 10-15 years. But while it would be hard to justify directly funding 'affordable housing' of this kind, such homes are, in fact, generally produced through planning or tax concessions that represent only indirect government support. It is to be hoped that, on equity grounds, the directly subsidised affordable rental housing to be generated under the Haff and other ongoing federal programs will be subsidised sufficiently to produce units genuinely affordable to the low-income worker (or second income quintile) cohort. Equally, equity considerations dictate that the bulk of government financial support for social and affordable housing should be devoted to the former. It is only through expanding our minimal remaining stock of deeply subsidised housing that we can similarly expand access to secure and affordable homes for the most disadvantaged Australians. The bigger picture here is that, despite the expanded social and affordable housing investment committed under the Albanese government, Australia is still spending nowhere near enough to decisively reverse decades of neglect in this area. The case for phasing down private landlord tax breaks, with the resulting additional revenue redirected to expanding such investment, remains compelling. Hal Pawson is a professor of housing research and policy at the University of NSW and associate director of the UNSW City Futures Research Centre. He is the lead author of the Australian Homelessness Monitor series
Bloomberg
4 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
Britain's Housing Splurge Is Long Overdue
The £39 billion ($53 billion) boost that Britain's Labour government has announced for affordable housing still leaves its ambition of building 1.5 million homes over five years looking like a stretch. That shouldn't obscure the broader point that the country has underspent for decades on accommodation for its most disadvantaged. Any attempt to reverse this trend has the potential to pay for itself in wider economic benefits and even lead to a healthier private property market. The state's retreat from providing housing began with Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s and gained added impetus after 2010 with the Conservative-led government's efforts to cut expenditure and repair the public finances following the global financial crisis. Rather than building homes, the government aimed to steer financial support to low-income households to enable them to rent in the private market or from not-for-profit housing associations. The guiding philosophy was that a more market-based approach would encourage a more aspirational society; public housing, by contrast, kept people caught in dependency.
